Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Taxation/Tax Reform

• Chairman Rangel's "Tax Relief" Plan Largest Tax Increase in History
  For Immediate Release:                                                  Contact: Kate Pomeroy
  October 26, 2007                                                            kate.pomeroy@iwf.org or 202-631-6704
  
  Chairman Rangel's "Tax Relief" Plan Largest in History
  Discouraging Work, Slowing Growth, and Reducing Job Opportunities
  

  
  Washington, DC - Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has just released a tax proposal that would increase taxes by an estimated $3.5 trillion, making it the largest increase of individual taxes in history.
  
  Among the bill's provisions are dramatic increases in the top marginal rate faced by individual taxpayers. All Americans would be affected by this increase in taxes, but many women would be particularly hurt. This bill would create a significant new marriage penalty and discourage many married women from working.
  
  The higher marginal tax rates would affect not only individual workers, but numerous small businesses that file tax returns as individuals will see their taxes rise. Small businesses play an important role in our economy, driving growth, creating jobs, and encouraging innovation. These punitive taxes will discourage entrepreneurship and impede America's economic progress.
  
  Chairman Rangel's plan would also discourage investment and risk taking by changing the tax treatment on partnerships. Venture capital funds, real estate investment partnerships, and hedge funds play an important role in the creation of new businesses. Levying higher taxes on these partnerships will discourage entrepreneurship, an engine of economic growth.
  
  "This bill is the wrong direction for American women-we need less taxation, not more. High taxes stifle economic growth, reduce job creation, and leave families with less money to spend as they see fit," said Carrie Lukas, Vice President of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum.
  
  The United States needs tax reform that makes the tax code less complicated and encourages work and investment. IWF believes Chairman Rangel's tax proposal moves in the wrong direction and urges congress to go back to the drawing board.
  

  For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Kate Pomeroy
  at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org or 202-631-6704.
  
• IWF Policy Brief: Taxes
  

  In a new IWF Policy Brief, Carrie Lukas looks at the latest push for higher taxes.  Here is the executive summary: 

  Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has just released a tax proposal that would increase taxes by an estimated $3.5 trillion, making it the largest increase of individual taxes in history.

  Among the bill's provisions are dramatic increases in the top marginal rate faced by individual taxpayers.  All Americans would be affected by the massive increase in taxes, but many women would be particularly hurt.  This bill would create a significant new marriage penalty and discourage many married women from working.

  Positive provisions such as the reductions in corporate tax rates and repealing the AMT are overwhelmed by the numerous tax increases.  This bill is the wrong direction for American women-we need less taxation, not more.  High taxes stifle economic growth, reduce job creation, and leave families with less money to spend as they see fit. 

  Policymakers should go back to the drawing board and focus on creating a simple tax code that encourages work and saving, and lets American workers keep more of what they earn.

  Download the entire report here.

• Baucus-Grassley Tax Increase Could Have a Negative Effect on the Economy...
  

  For Immediate Release:

  Baucus-Grassley Tax Increase Could Have a Negative Effect on the Economy...and not just for the rich.

  The Independent Women's Forum warns that passage of the proposed Baucus-Grassley tax increase on publicly traded partnerships, which has been introduced before the U. S. Senate (S. 1624), could have a profoundly negative effect on the American economy, and not just for the rich.

  Although a tax on equity and hedge funds that go public might appear at first glance to be irrelevant for the vast majority of U.S. taxpayers, this is decidedly not the case. The most immediate impact would be that small fry investors would be denied entry into successful funds when managers refrain from going public to avoid Baucus-Grassley.

  Many potentially lucrative IPOs (initial public offerings) which can be sterling investments for retirement simply would not be available for ordinary investors. Thus a tax designed to punish the nation's most successful money managers would affect a far larger segment of the population.

  The Baucus-Grassley tax would hinder creativity and stifle the U.S. ability to compete in the global market and ultimately this would have a negative impact in countries around the globe. Only economic expansion keeps unemployment rates low, and this tax would have a dampening effect on economic activity.

  Perhaps the most compelling reason to fear this tax, however, is that it is an extremely high tax rate. High tax rates tend to set a precedent and have a trickle down rate effect that could eventually justify higher tax rates on all of us.

  Ironically, this tax is not needed. The U.S. tax revenue has set record highs several quarters since the Bush tax cuts have had time to take affect. In addition, the corporate tax base is in no danger of collapsing. It is important, in making any changes in the tax code, to adopt ones that lead to economic expansion, not contraction.

  The tax increase proposed by Senators Baucus and Grassley would lead to economic contraction and a slowing of the U.S. economy.

  To schedule an interview, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-349-5889 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.

   

   

• Efforts to Impose New Punitive Taxes on Publicly Traded Partnerships
  

  The Independent Women's Forum argues that the Baucus-Grassley tax increase on publicly traded partnerships, which has been introduced before the U.S. Senate (S. 1624), will threaten the ability of the U.S. economy to compete internationally. Designed to penalize wealthy money managers, this tax increase affects the little guy too.
  
  Capital markets drive the U.S. and the world economy and it is the creativity of the market, not governments that can improve the lives of millions of people all over the world. Government stifling of market creativity inevitably has a negative impact on economies in various countries. Creative structures for investment vehicles drive the economy and set America apart from rivals overseas.
  
  Different organizational structures, i.e., corporations and partnerships that adhere to different tax requirements exist for a reason: to help ensure diversity in the market. Allowing the U.S. government to dictate, through the tax code, what is in essence a single structure for public organizations is a regression policy that takes us back to the days of phone company monopolies. Allowing a measure such as the proposed Baucus-Grassley tax bill to set rules for what companies can and can't be is similar to stipulating that all hamburgers in the U.S. should consist of two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese. The market needs to be diverse and allow organic growth and creativity. The U.S. economy has come a long way in the last quarter century and now is not the time to move backwards.
  
  The U.S. tax code should change with the times, but these changes must not be ones that imperil creativity and economic growth. Only growth can keep unemployment low and feed all sectors of the economy. Taxing investments and the risk that such investments entail will encourage companies not to go public and cause economic stagnation. Companies held privately are also less transparent and subject to less oversight than publicly held companies.
  
  Through their success these equity and hedge fund managers have proved they can do more with these funds than the government can. Ask Americans who manages money more effectively the government or Wall Street and most will look to Wall Street for better returns. The proposed Grassley-Baucus tax increase would prevent many companies from going public and thereby prevent the smaller inv